Moved from issue http://www.drupal.org/node/74156. Apparently, nodes no longer display in the correct association with their terms. And, perhaps, terms are no longer correctly nested. From that issue:

But for 4.7 the cateogry is showing up both in the breadcrumb and in the menu block. It looks like this:

Services
=======
>Services
>New Term
>New Term2

The breadcrumb is also busted so when I click on "New Term" it reads:
home >> Services >> Services

Basically, there is a "taxonomy/vocabuly/*" link where there never was one before. Plus, there is a it outputs right before the list and after it! Why would you have a plug in do that? That makes no sense to me.

Also, when I expand one of the terms, it shows the contents of that term, but it shows it under the tother terms for the cateogry. For example, I have page1, page2, and page3 under "New Term". I click on "New Term" and the menu then looks like:

Services
=======
>Services
V New Term
>New Term2
* page1
* page2
* page3

This used to show up under the V New Terms which is the terms it's filed under.

Comments

fgm’s picture

In order to identify, reproduce, and hopefully fix the problem, can you confirm:

  • the version number you are using
  • if this happens with a standard theme like bluemarine

Since this patch is about themeability, any output depends a lot on themeing: the module itself uses core theme functions, which themes may or may not implement correctly.

fgm’s picture

Also, it I can check the problem directly on your site including read access to the vocabulary for which you have the problem, it might speed up an answer.

fgm’s picture

Priority: Critical » Normal

I dug a little deeper in your example and the current default bahviour without theme customization is: first show terms, then show terms at the current level, then show their nodes if they have any, then the sibling terms if they exist, then the siblings of the parents up to the root, then below all terms show nodes at the parent level. I seem to remember that this is how it worked before I created the patch, but I may be wrong on this.

You seem to imply the behaviour was different at some point in time, and you prefer the previous ordering. Could you confirm a revision having another behaviour so I can check how it used to look like ?

Also note that this is now a themeable function: since the main goal of the themeability patch was to split building the link/node list from its rendering, any ordering can now be applied by overriding theme_taxonomy_context_children_list($tid, $base = FALSE)

This theme function obtains taxonomy_context data from the two lines starting it:

  $context = taxonomy_context_get_context();
  $tree = _taxonomy_context_build_tree($context->tid, $base);

After that, it's only a rendering question: the function performs the rendering in the following lines, by walking the tree. It is possible to include the parent nodes in the middle of the terms as you seem to wish, probably by moving the call to theme('taxonomy_context_nodes', $path_term->tid) which is currently near the end of the loop a bit upwards, after

if ($current_term->tid == $context->tid) // This is the current terminal path

and tweaking the $opener / $filler / $closer to make sure all nests properly with this new (old ?) ordering as it does currently.

Downgrading to "normal" because this does not prevent the module from functioning, but can produce different results from previous implementations.

moshe weitzman’s picture

liek nedjo, the ordering of nodes in the block seems quite odd to me. i expected node titles under the term the belong to. in nedjo's example, thats 'page1' directly under 'V New Term'

fgm’s picture

OK, there seems to be some agreement that things are not as they should be.

Could you make a spec on the wiki section I made for these issues so there can be an agreement on how things actually should be ?

moshe weitzman’s picture

is it possible to remove the registration requirement on the wiki and not get hit by wiki spam?

fgm’s picture

I'm afraid not :-(

But I've created your account without having your email and sent you the pass using your contact form on d.o. so I still don't know your address, if that's your problem. Of course, it also means the email address bound to your login is mine...

nedjo’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

This was fixed by a roll back.

Anonymous’s picture

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)